Having a conversation over the recently spoiled card a friend and I had different interpretation over the VERY wordy txt.
He beleives that any naval enhanced character can defend/attack on any challenge regardless of challege type icon.
So my intrigue fleet could defent his miliary monocon fleet in a words.
This is correct? or is the challenge type still matter
You're going to need to either provide the text or a link to the spoiler.
I guess FFG has better rule that removing one restriction does not remove others (meaning the "in which it could normally participate" text on Bound by Duty is unnecessary). I'm looking at Ser Balon Swann as well as this (though this is by far the worst). Or is this like The Fox's Teeth? I admit I've never been able to understand why Ser Balon Swann would be able to defend even without his icon just because his text says he doesn't have to be standing.
This one is doubly confusing… even assuming that the "even while kneeling" bypasses only the kneeling restriction (which seems logical), it appears that if you have a naval enhancement on one icon you can then defend/attack while kneeling for all challenges you'd have an icon for (not merely those icons you have enhanced).
Counter-intuitive… but definitely correct according to the current wording.
Khudzlin said:
If a card doesn't contradict both requirements directly, the ones it doesn't contradict are in full force. Looking at the cards you name:
Bound by Duty: specifically says the kneeling character is "eligible" (as opposed to "can be declared" on the other effects). That would imply that both 1 & 2 are contradicted (since both are required for eligibility), so the "in which it could normally participate" wording is not unnecessary because it "backs off" on the "eligible" language used. This is an example of "different-than-normal" templating.
Balon Swann: specifically contradicts both by saying "during intrigure challenges" (#2) and "while kneeling" (#1). So, the fact that he states a specific type of challenge means that he directly contradicts the icon requirement for that challenge type, as well as the "standing" requirement.
Fox's Teeth: Only contradicts #1. By not naming a challenge type or any other situation for which specific challenges the character can be declared as a defender in while kneeling, the icon requirement is not contradicted, so it holds.
The new Epic Battle event directly contradicts #1 (standing requirement) but in no way does it contradict #2 (the icon requirement). So, like Fox's Teeth, the icon requirement holds. Enhanced characters must still have the corresponding icon to be declared, kneeling or otherwise.
Where I get stuck with Ser Balon Swann is that I read the naming of the challenge type not as waiving a requirement, but as limiting the scope of the rest of his ability (just like Shagga, Son of Dolf).
@ktom
Can you clarify if the claim replacement is optional and how it's optional?
I'm confused by this sentance: "Instead of the normal claim, the winner of each challenge may choose and take control of a location controlled by the loosing opponent."
The phrase "Instead of normal claim," leads one to belive that winning the challenge as the attacker means you get to choose between…
Yet the word "may" in the next sentance seems to give these choices:
Which is correct?
I always read this (and similar cards) as the former scenario.
Claim resolution is replaced and this is not optional. What is optional is the choosing of a location to take control of. You are still "resolving claim" even if you do not choose a location.
Would be curious to know if I have been getting this wrong.
You are correct Marshall Lambert. The other Battle for Shield Islands thread concludes the replacement is not optional. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=18&efcid=4&efidt=796134&efpag=0#798642